Jump to content

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 940586777 by MrX (talk)
Undid revision 940586259 by MrX (talk)
Line 79: Line 79:


The CNN-sponsored debate between Democratic candidates on January 14, 2020, was the subject of criticism over perceived bias against Sanders, especially concerning moderator [[Abby Phillip]]'s handling of a he-said, she-said controversy<ref name="RSdebate">{{cite website|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/january-democratic-debate-2020-cnn-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-938365/|author=Matt Taibbi|date=15 January 2020|website=Rolling Stone|title=CNN’s Debate Performance Was Villainous and Shameful}}</ref> between Sanders and fellow Senator and candidate Elizabeth Warren.<ref>{{cite website|url=https://www.thenation.com/article/sanders-warren-cnn-debate/|author=Jeet Heer|website=[[The Nation]]|title=CNN Has It In for Bernie|date=15 January 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite website|author1=Ryan Grim|author2=Aída Chávez|author3=Akela Lacy|url=https://theintercept.com/2020/01/15/bernie-sanders-cnn-iowa-debate/|website=[[The Intercept]]|date=15 January 2020|title=At Iowa, Bernie Sanders' most vociferous opponent was CNN}}</ref><ref>{{cite website|url=https://fair.org/home/the-big-loser-in-the-iowa-debate-cnns-reputation/|author1=Jim Naureckas|author2=Julie Hollar|title=FAIR: The Big Loser in the Iowa Debate? CNN's Reputation|date=15 January 2020|website=[[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]]}}</ref> Journalism think-tank [[Poynter Institute]] called Phillip's treatment of Sanders "stunning in its ineptness, and stunning in its unprofessionalism."<ref>{{cite website|author=Tom Jones|url=https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/a-media-misfire-from-cnn-during-the-debate-press-may-be-cut-out-of-some-impeachment-hearings-megyn-kelly-reacts-to-bombshell/|title=A media misfire from CNN during the debate » Press may be cut out of some impeachment hearings » Megyn Kelly reacts to ‘Bombshell’|date=15 January 2020|website=Poynter.}}</ref><ref>{{cite website|author=David Bowder|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/cnn-draws-fire-debate-question-ignores-denial-68303899|date=15 January 2020|title=CNN draws fire for debate question that ignores denial|website=ABC News}}</ref>
The CNN-sponsored debate between Democratic candidates on January 14, 2020, was the subject of criticism over perceived bias against Sanders, especially concerning moderator [[Abby Phillip]]'s handling of a he-said, she-said controversy<ref name="RSdebate">{{cite website|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/january-democratic-debate-2020-cnn-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-938365/|author=Matt Taibbi|date=15 January 2020|website=Rolling Stone|title=CNN’s Debate Performance Was Villainous and Shameful}}</ref> between Sanders and fellow Senator and candidate Elizabeth Warren.<ref>{{cite website|url=https://www.thenation.com/article/sanders-warren-cnn-debate/|author=Jeet Heer|website=[[The Nation]]|title=CNN Has It In for Bernie|date=15 January 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite website|author1=Ryan Grim|author2=Aída Chávez|author3=Akela Lacy|url=https://theintercept.com/2020/01/15/bernie-sanders-cnn-iowa-debate/|website=[[The Intercept]]|date=15 January 2020|title=At Iowa, Bernie Sanders' most vociferous opponent was CNN}}</ref><ref>{{cite website|url=https://fair.org/home/the-big-loser-in-the-iowa-debate-cnns-reputation/|author1=Jim Naureckas|author2=Julie Hollar|title=FAIR: The Big Loser in the Iowa Debate? CNN's Reputation|date=15 January 2020|website=[[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]]}}</ref> Journalism think-tank [[Poynter Institute]] called Phillip's treatment of Sanders "stunning in its ineptness, and stunning in its unprofessionalism."<ref>{{cite website|author=Tom Jones|url=https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/a-media-misfire-from-cnn-during-the-debate-press-may-be-cut-out-of-some-impeachment-hearings-megyn-kelly-reacts-to-bombshell/|title=A media misfire from CNN during the debate » Press may be cut out of some impeachment hearings » Megyn Kelly reacts to ‘Bombshell’|date=15 January 2020|website=Poynter.}}</ref><ref>{{cite website|author=David Bowder|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/cnn-draws-fire-debate-question-ignores-denial-68303899|date=15 January 2020|title=CNN draws fire for debate question that ignores denial|website=ABC News}}</ref>

In the eve of the New Hampshire primary, two MSNBC journalists, Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd, drew criticism for attacking Sanders and his supporters in a way deemed excessive to the eyes of the candidate's campaign, as well as those of some media commentators. During an anti-socialism rant, Chris Matthews warned of the risk of “executions in Central Park” in the event of a Sanders victory, while Chuck Todd quoted a conservative source to compare Sanders' supporters to [[Nazi]] [[brown shirts]].<ref>{{cite website|url=https://www.gq.com/story/mainstream-media-vs-bernie-sanders|title=Why Does Mainstream Media Keep Attacking Bernie Sanders as He Wins?|website=[[GQ]]|date=12 February 2020|author=MARI UYEHARA}}</ref> Todd's segment caused a warning from the [[Anti-Defamation League]] not to trivialize the [[Holocaust]].<ref>{{cite tweet |user=ADL |number=1227272956511956997|date=11 February 2019 |title=ADL comments on Chuck Todd's segment about Sanders}}</ref><ref>{{cite website|url=https://www.foxnews.com/media/chuck-todd-anti-defamation-league-sanders|title=MSNBC's Chuck Todd criticized by Anti-Defamation League over Sanders 'brownshirt brigade' remark|date=13 February 2020|website=Fox News}}</ref>

The coverage received by Sanders' campaign during the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary has also been the subject of controversy. Despite having won the popular vote in both disputes, says [[Margaret Sullivan (journalist)|Margaret Sullivan]], the media chose to lavish attention, not on Sanders, but on candidates with inferior results, especially [[Pete Buttigieg]] and [[Amy Klobuchar]], which Sullivan attributes to personal antipathy that many journalists feel towards Sanders and his supporters. "Sanders, though, doesn’t seem to mind. His ardent followers bond with him and with one another by despising the mainstream media, often enough with good reason," she concludes.<ref>{{cite website|author=Margaret Sullivan|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-media-keep-falling-in-love--with-anybody-but-bernie-sanders/2020/02/12/0f55cc12-4d9c-11ea-bf44-f5043eb3918a_story.html|title=The media keep falling in love — with anybody but Bernie Sanders|date=12 February 2020|website=Washington Post}}</ref> A ''[[Vice News]]'' analysis by Laura Wagner, likewise, pointed out that the media decided to crown Buttigieg and Klobuchar as New Hampshire winners, although both had lower results than Sanders in the popular vote, and Klobuchar earned fewer delegates as well.<ref>{{cite website|url=https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxegbq/analysis-bernie-sanders-wins-new-hampshire-primary|title=Analysis: The Real Winner of the New Hampshire Primary Was Bernie Sanders|date=12 February 2020|author=Laura Wagner|website=Vice News}}</ref>


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 13:59, 13 February 2020

Bernie Sanders in November 2019

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders became a subject of controversy during his 2016 presidential run. His campaign, some independent observers, and some media sources question whether the mainstream media in the United States is structurally inclined to be biased against Bernie Sanders. Other individuals and organizations say that coverage is unbiased. The allegations of bias primarily concern both his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns, and revolve around corporate ownership of news organizations, misleading graphics, and a perceived under-coverage of his candidacies.

One Harvard study of media coverage showed that overall media coverage of the 2016 primaries focused primarily on the "competitive game" or the mechanics of the primary process, with only 11 percent of coverage being related to issues.[1] One book length study of the 2016 election said that the amount of media coverage of Sanders during 2015 exceeded his standing in the polls, and was strongly correlated with his polling performance over the course of the whole campaign.[2] Researchers have said that he was "largely ignored in the early months" following his announcement because he was little-known and so seen as unelectable, but also that his coverage continued to lag until the pre-primary debates, even after he had emerged as the number-two contender.[3] Analysis of the language used concluded that media coverage of the "underdog" Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate.[2][3] By contrast, during the middle period of the voting primary (March 15th-May 3rd), the "particularly sparse" coverage of Sanders turned negative for the first time in his campaign.[1] Stories about Republican candidates, and particularly about Donald Trump, dominated media coverage (64 percent) during both this "middle period" of the primaries and overall, because the media considered the Republican race to be the real "horserace".[1] According to Patterson, Sanders got two-thirds of the coverage Clinton got during the Democratic primary as a whole.[1]

During the 2020 Democratic primary, Sanders renewed his criticism of the culture of corporate media with a "plan for journalism" meant to curb the consolidation of media he sees as responsible for the lack of substance on network news.[4] Stories were written about journalists at MSNBC distorting data in a manner unfavorable to Sanders in July[5][6] and more appeared after Sanders speculated at rallies in August as to whether the Washington Post could cover him fairly when he encouraged taxing Post-owner Jeff Bezos' main company, Amazon, more heavily.[7][8] These allegations of bias were discounted by the executive editor of the Post as conspiratorial.[9]

Background

Writing in 2005, Sanders identified corporate media coverage of political issues as a subject on which he felt he needed to take a position.[10]

In 2016, Sanders lost his challenge to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination. After the election, he devoted a chapter to media issues in a bestselling book. In it, he wrote of how, because he was being covered as a presidential contender, corporate media ran a sizeable number of stories on poverty that he suggests would otherwise not have been aired. He also wrote that while national media did not cover his visits to poverty-stricken areas of the country, local media did. In the chapter, he discusses the consequences of corporations like General Electric, Comcast, and Disney owning media conglomerates for media coverage of issues like taxation and trans-national trade agreements.[11]

Academic books and studies

Jonathan Stray, a computational journalism researcher at the Columbia Journalism School, wrote for Nieman Lab in January 2016 that, "at least online", Sanders got coverage proportionate to his standing in polls.[12]

Thomas Patterson of the Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy wrote a report in June 2016 analyzing the media coverage of candidates in the 2016 presidential primaries.[13] Patterson said that Sanders did better than most "candidates in recent decades who entered the campaign with no money, no organization, and no national following" and said Trump was "arguably the first bona fide media-created presidential nominee".[3] According to data compiled by Media Tenor, "[o]ver the course of 2015, the Democratic race got less than half as much news exposure as the Republican race."[3] Patterson said that this data showed the Sanders campaign was "largely ignored in the early months", but that once he did begin to get coverage in 2015, it was "overwhelmingly positive in tone", but that this positive media exposure did not happen "at a rate close to what he needed to compensate for the early part of the year."[3][14] Patterson also found that coverage of Sanders was "particularly sparse" during the "middle period" of the primary (March 15-May 3).[1] Sanders himself focused on the data the Shorenstein Center provided showing that coverage of issues was vastly inferior (10 percent) to coverage of the primary process and the political "horserace" (90 percent).[15]

A 2018 book co-written by three political scientists said that the amount of news coverage Sanders received exceeded his share in the national polls in 2015. Throughout the campaign as a whole, their analysis showed that his "media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated."[2]

In her 2018 book, Rachel Bitecofer wrote that the Democratic primary was effectively over in terms of delegate count by mid-March 2016, but that the media promoted the narrative that the contest between Sanders and Clinton was "heating up" at that time.[16] Bitecofer found that Trump received more media coverage than Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders combined during a time when those were the only primary candidates left in the race.[16]

A 2019 study by Northeastern University's School of Journalism found that Sanders initially received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the 2020 primary and later the third and then fourth most favorable of eight candidates.[17][18]

2016 primary campaign

See also: 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign
Sanders at a town meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, July 2015

On May 26, 2015 Sanders announced his presidential campaign. According to Sanders in his book Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In, the New York Times covered the story on page 19.[11]: 347 

In August 2015, Elizabeth Jensen of NPR responded to an influx of emails regarding a "Morning Edition" segment. Jensen said that she does not "find that NPR has been slighting his campaign. In the last two days alone, NPR has covered the Democrats' climate change stances and reactions to the Republican debate and Sanders has been well in the mix."[19]

In the following month, Margaret Sullivan, public editor of the New York Times, wrote that she had received many complaints from readers about purported bias against Sanders. She responded that the Times had given roughly the same amount of articles dedicated to Sanders as they did to similarly-polling Republican candidates (barring Donald Trump), while conceding that some of the articles written were "fluff" and "regrettably dismissive".[20] Later in the month, as the campaign gained some steam, The Washington Post wrote, "Sanders has not faced the kind of media scrutiny, let alone attacks from opponents, that leading candidates eventually experience."[21] John Sides also wrote in the same outlet that the volume of media coverage of Sanders had been consistent with his polling and that the press he had been getting was more favorable than Clinton's.[22]

In October 2015, Story Hinckley of the The Christian Science Monitor said there was "near-blackout from major TV news sources" about the Sanders campaign, despite Sanders polling high and bringing in significant donations.[23] Media Matters reported on a September 2015 study by Andrew Tyndall, which showed ABC, CBS, and NBC devoted 504 minutes to the presidential race (338 to Republicans, 128 minutes to Democrats, of which 8 minutes were about Sanders).[24] In October 2015, Sanders supporters complained that the media was biased against Sanders, arguing that online polls contradicted media pundits' assessment of his performances in an October debate; Josh Vorhees of Slate noted that online polls are not reliable.[25]

In November 2015, David Brock set up a Delaware company to buy Blue Nation Review and turn it into a vehicle for the Clinton campaign. According to Lloyd Grove, the blog was "a comfortable venue for negative Sanders stories that Brock wasn't successful in placing with mainstream news outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post".[26]

In January 2016, Claire Malone from FiveThirtyEight said that Sanders was not the subject of a "media blackout," as he had just reached a 30 percent share of coverage. [27] On January 22, The Guardian reported that Sanders aides had accused David Brock of mudslinging,[28] after the latter spoke to the press about one of Sanders' campaign ads, saying "If it weren't for the picture of Sanders it could be an ad for Donald Trump[;]" and "[f]rom the ad it seems black lives don't matter much to Bernie Sanders."[29][30] According to Sides, etal., this ad "elicited very positive responses when it was shown to a representative sample of Americans. Nearly 80 percent said that it made them at least a little bit happy or hopeful. No other ad in 2016 was rated so positively."[2]: 110 

Asked by Jay Newton-Small of Time magazine in February 2016 if "Brock, CTR, Bridge and Priorities [were] fighting an asymmetrical war against [Sanders]," Brock affirmed that "we do opposition research, but we haven't leveled any false accusations against Senator Sanders and we won't."[31]

On March 8, the day of the Michigan primary, in an article published by FAIR, Adam Johnson said that the Washington Post ran 16 stories about Bernie Sanders over a 16-hour period between a "crucial" debate and primary, pitching the view that he was "a clueless white man incapable of winning over people of color or speaking to women."[32][33] The Washington Post's Callum Borchers responded, saying that all the stories with the exception of two were commentary and analysis pieces. Of the two news articles, one was an Associated Press wire story, and the other was about the Sanders campaign's struggle to connect with African-American primary voters in 2016 and its implications for 2020.[34] After the Michigan primary had passed, Borchers said that The Washington Post ran 16 stories which presented Sanders in a positive light.[35] Johnson replied by mocking the idea of the Washington Post investigating itself for bias.[36]

From March 15 – May 3, according to researcher Thomas Patterson, the Republican/Democratic primary coverage split was 64:36, and the Clinton/Sanders media coverage split was 61:39.[1] Patterson ascribes this difference to "the influence of “electability” on reporting," rather than on polling numbers. For the first time in the campaign, Clinton's press was positive (51:49) and Sanders' press was negative (46:54).[1] On March 15th, Sanders lost four of the day's five Democratic primaries. Though the national media had film crews on hand in Phoenix, AZ where he was speaking, they chose not to broadcast video of his speech, opting to transmit images of the empty podium behind which Trump would emerge 20 minutes later, covering the "dead time" with horserace punditry.[37][15]

The New York Times was criticized for retroactively making significant changes to a March 15, 2016 article about Bernie Sanders' legislative accomplishments over the past 25 years.[38][39] In addition to the revised title, several negative paragraphs were added.[40] In 2019, Margaret Sullivan, public editor at the NY Times, wrote that the changes were clear examples of "stealth editing" and that "the changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Sanders' legislative accomplishments than one who saw it hours later."[41]

In April 2016, NPR's media correspondent David Folkenflik responded to criticisms of bias against Sanders saying that Sanders had appeared three times on NPR whereas Clinton had only done so once, that media outlets saw a Sanders win as a "long shot" early in the campaign, and that by April 2016, she appeared very likely to win the nomination[42]

In April 2016, Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias of Vox wrote the media was biased in favor of Sanders because Clinton's lead was becoming increasingly insurmountable, yet the media had a vested commercial interest in exaggerating how close the race was.[43][44]

After the presidential election was over, in January 2017, David Brock apologized to Bernie Sanders for his aggressive support of Clinton during the 2016 campaign.[45][46]

2020 primary campaign

See also: 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign

In February 2019, Shane Ryan (Paste Magazine) reported that within 48 hours of Sanders' campaign launch, the Washington Post had published four opinion pieces about him, two of which were by columnist Jennifer Rubin. Ryan described the common themes in these columns as a "manufactured narrative" that Sanders' time had—as one of the columnists put it—"come and gone".[47] One week later, Paul Heintz opined in the Post that "the way the senator sees it, the job of a journalist is merely to transcribe his diatribes unchallenged and broadcast his sermons unfiltered".[48]

According to a March 2019 analysis by Northeastern University's School of Journalism, Sanders received the most positive coverage of any major candidate in the 2020 Democratic primary. An updated analysis in April placed him third out of eight candidates;[17] a further update for June–September 2019 found that Sanders's positive coverage ranked fourth out of eight major candidates.[18]

In April 2019, Sanders wrote to the board of the Center for American Progress in response to a video produced by their former media outlet ThinkProgress. The video mocked him for becoming a millionaire after writing a book about his 2016 election run.[49][50] The following month, Politico published a feature article on Sanders's income. Both the article and tweets from official Politico accounts on Twitter promoting the text, described him as "rich" and "cheap"; the article itself also contained a montage of a giant Sanders holding three houses.[51] People on social media complained that the promotion of the article was anti-Semitic. Politico deleted one of its tweets promoting the text and replaced the illustration with another, showing Sanders in a backyard with a money tree in the background.[52] Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who later became a surrogate, tweeted sharply.[53] Articles in Buzzfeed News, Jacobin, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency criticized the tone and arguments of Politico's article.[52][54] Writing for the JTA, Andrew Silow-Carroll summarized what he called selective outrage after comparing the story to other recent examples of political "conjunction of Jews, money and influence" : "If you are only enraged by the anti-Semitism of your political enemies, then it’s hard to take your outrage seriously."[55] Sanders himself called the article anti-Semitic days later.[56]

In June 2019, Katie Halper, writing for FAIR, reported that Sydney Ember, a New York Times reporter assigned to cover Sanders, was regularly citing criticism of the candidate by his ideological opponents. "Moreover," wrote Halper, "many of these 'experts' are corporate lobbyists, whose work in a particular area is not guided by academic, journalistic or other professional standards, but by the economic and political interests of their clients." Ember was citing these sources as neutral authorities, without disclosing their potential conflicts of interest.[38]

In July 2019, Halper documented a number of instances in which cable news network MSNBC employed graphics that distorted polling and donor data to Sanders' detriment.[5] Politico put forth the idea that the Sanders campaign's perception of bias may be an artifact of Sanders propensity to decline informal interviews at "press gaggles" after events and his reluctance to focus on breaking news.[57]

In August 2019, Sanders said that The Washington Post did not "write particularly good articles about" him and suggested that it was because he frequently mentioned that Amazon did not pay taxes.[58][59] Marty Baron, executive editor of The Washington Post, responded, "Contrary to the conspiracy theory the senator seems to favor, Jeff Bezos allows our newsroom to operate with full independence, as our reporters and editors can attest."[59] Sanders rejected that his claim was a conspiracy theory.[60] NPR wrote that Sanders's comments bore similarities to Trump's criticism of the media.[60] CNN columnist Chris Cillizza said that Sanders had no evidence for his claims.[61]

In the same month, the Washington Post deemed false Sanders's claim that "500,000 people go bankrupt every year because they cannot pay their outrageous medical bills". In an article for Rolling Stone, Tim Dickinson disputed the Post's findings and said that the claim made by Sanders was true, citing a study in the American Journal of Public Health.[62][63]

In November 2019, Emma Specter at Vogue doubted that there was a conspiracy against Sanders. She also listed several examples of limited coverage of his policy proposals and interpreted lack of coverage of Sanders on certain issues and events as being "only somewhat surprising".[64] In the same month, In These Times analyzed coverage of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary by MSNBC between August and September 2019.[65][66] They found that "MSNBC talked about Biden twice as often as Warren and three times as often as Sanders", and that Sanders was the candidate spoken of negatively the most frequently of the three. They also found that "[o]verall, MSNBC's primary coverage was devoid of policy discussion."[67] Also in November 2019, Politico reported that Biden had received nearly three times more cable news coverage than Sanders and Warren, due in part to his Biden's indirect involvement in the Trump–Ukraine scandal.[68]

In a December 2019 opinion column for The New York Times, David Leonhardt agreed with John F. Harris — the co-founder of Politico — about the media having a centrist bias. Leonardt argued this hurt Sanders and Warren — particularly in questions posed to both about the issue of a wealth tax.[69] In the same month, Ryan Grim of The Intercept said a "Bernie Blackout" was not necessarily a negative for Sanders, as it would allow him to avoid criticism, and focus on his own media outlets.[67]

The CNN-sponsored debate between Democratic candidates on January 14, 2020, was the subject of criticism over perceived bias against Sanders, especially concerning moderator Abby Phillip's handling of a he-said, she-said controversy[70] between Sanders and fellow Senator and candidate Elizabeth Warren.[71][72][73] Journalism think-tank Poynter Institute called Phillip's treatment of Sanders "stunning in its ineptness, and stunning in its unprofessionalism."[74][75]

In the eve of the New Hampshire primary, two MSNBC journalists, Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd, drew criticism for attacking Sanders and his supporters in a way deemed excessive to the eyes of the candidate's campaign, as well as those of some media commentators. During an anti-socialism rant, Chris Matthews warned of the risk of “executions in Central Park” in the event of a Sanders victory, while Chuck Todd quoted a conservative source to compare Sanders' supporters to Nazi brown shirts.[76] Todd's segment caused a warning from the Anti-Defamation League not to trivialize the Holocaust.[77][78]

The coverage received by Sanders' campaign during the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary has also been the subject of controversy. Despite having won the popular vote in both disputes, says Margaret Sullivan, the media chose to lavish attention, not on Sanders, but on candidates with inferior results, especially Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, which Sullivan attributes to personal antipathy that many journalists feel towards Sanders and his supporters. "Sanders, though, doesn’t seem to mind. His ardent followers bond with him and with one another by despising the mainstream media, often enough with good reason," she concludes.[79] A Vice News analysis by Laura Wagner, likewise, pointed out that the media decided to crown Buttigieg and Klobuchar as New Hampshire winners, although both had lower results than Sanders in the popular vote, and Klobuchar earned fewer delegates as well.[80]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Thomas E. Patterson (July 11, 2016), News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Primaries: Horse Race Reporting Has Consequences, retrieved January 3, 2020, The press did not heavily cover the candidates' policy positions, their personal and leadership characteristics, their private and public histories, background information on election issues, or group commitments for and by the candidates. Such topics accounted for roughly a tenth of the primary coverage.

    Over the course of the primary season, Sanders received only two-thirds of the coverage afforded Clinton. Sanders' coverage trailed Clinton's in every week of the primary season.
  2. ^ a b c d John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 99, 104–107. ISBN 978-0-691-17419-8. Archived from the original on November 14, 2019. Retrieved December 8, 2019.
  3. ^ a b c d e Thomas E. Patterson, Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump's Rise, Sanders' Emergence, Clinton's Struggle, archived from the original on November 27, 2019, retrieved December 1, 2019
  4. ^ Bernie Sanders (August 26, 2019). "Op-Ed: Bernie Sanders on his plan for journalism". Columbia Journalism Review. Today, for every working journalist, there are six people now working in public relations, often pushing a corporate line.
  5. ^ a b Katie Halper (July 26, 2019), MSNBC's Anti-Sanders Bias Makes It Forget How to Do Math, FAIR, archived from the original on November 9, 2019, retrieved December 1, 2019
  6. ^ Glenn Greenwald (March 3, 2019), MSNBC Yet Again Broadcasts Blatant Lies, This Time About Bernie Sanders's Opening Speech, and Refuses to Correct Them, The Intercept, archived from the original on November 17, 2019, retrieved December 1, 2019
  7. ^ Julie Hollar (August 15, 2019). "Here's the Evidence Corporate Media Say Is Missing of WaPo Bias Against Sanders". FAIR. Archived from the original on November 21, 2019. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
  8. ^ Dominico Montanaro (August 13, 2019). "Bernie Sanders Again Attacks Amazon – This Time Pulling In 'The Washington Post'". NPR. Archived from the original on November 27, 2019. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
  9. ^ Morgan Gstalter (August 13, 2019), Washington Post editor calls Sanders claim about campaign coverage a 'conspiracy theory', The Hill, archived from the original on November 30, 2019, retrieved December 1, 2019
  10. ^ Bernie Sanders (2005). "Why Americans Should Take Back the Media". In Robert McChesney; Russell Newman; Ben Scott (eds.). The Future of Media: Resistance and Reform in the 21st Century. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 978-1-58322-679-7. OCLC 57574152. {{cite book}}: |editor3= has generic name (help)
  11. ^ a b Bernie Sanders (2016). "Corporate Media and the Threat to Our Democracy". Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In. Thomas Dunne Books. p. 434. ISBN 978-1-250-13292-5. OCLC 1026148801.
  12. ^ Jonathan Stray. "How much influence does the media really have over elections? Digging into the data". Nieman Lab. Retrieved December 9, 2019.
  13. ^ Sarah Childress. "Study: Election Coverage Skewed By "Journalistic Bias"". Frontline. PBS.
  14. ^ Nikolas Decosta-Klipa (June 14, 2016). "This Harvard study both confirms and refutes Bernie Sanders's complaints about the media". Boston Globe. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
  15. ^ a b "Bernie Sanders: "I Was Stunned" by Corporate Media Blackout During Democratic Primary". Democracy Now!. November 29, 2016.
  16. ^ a b Rachel Bitecofer (2018). "The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election". Palgrave: 36–38, 48. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61976-7. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  17. ^ a b Alexander Frandsen; Aleszu Bajak (April 24, 2019), Women on the 2020 campaign trail are being treated more negatively by the media, Storybench, archived from the original on October 7, 2019, retrieved December 2, 2019
  18. ^ a b Aleszu Bajak (September 30, 2019), Gabbard, Booker and Biden get most negative media coverage over last four months, Storybench, archived from the original on December 4, 2019, retrieved December 2, 2019
  19. ^ Elizabeth Jensen (August 7, 2015), Feelin' The Bern: Sanders Devotees Speak Out About NPR's Coverage, NPR
  20. ^ Sullivan, Margaret (September 9, 2015). "Has The Times Dismissed Bernie Sanders?". The New York Times. Retrieved December 16, 2019.
  21. ^ Philip Rucker; John Wagner (September 11, 2015). "How Bernie Sanders is plotting his path to the Democratic nomination". The Washington Post.
  22. ^ Sides, John (September 2015). "Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders? Not really". Monkey Cage. The Washington Post.
  23. ^ Story Hinckley (October 1, 2015), "Bernie who? Why does TV media ignore Sanders even as he tops polls?", The Christian Science Monitor
  24. ^ Boehlert, Eric (September 24, 2015). "Network Newscasts' Campaign Priorities: Obsess Over Clinton Emails, Virtually Ignore Sanders". Media Matters for America. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
  25. ^ Voorhees, Josh (October 15, 2015). "Yes, Bernie Won Every Poll on the Internet. Hillary Still Won the Debate". Slate. Retrieved December 9, 2019.
  26. ^ Lloyd Grove (March 7, 2016). "Hillary Clinton's Hit Men Target Bernie Sanders at Blue Nation Review". Daily Beast.
  27. ^ "Has There Been A Bernie Sanders Blackout? | On the Media". WNYC Studios. And now he's sort of edged up into 30% of coverage. And people have been searching Bernie quite a bit, in the low 50-60 range, and they kind of plateaued into the following winter. So, maybe he's not getting super duper coverage, but he's not not there.
  28. ^ Dan Roberts (January 22, 2016). "Sanders smeared as communist sympathiser as Clinton allies sling mud". The Guardian.
  29. ^ "Clinton ally says Sanders slights minorities in new ad". Las Vegas Sun. January 21, 2016. Archived from the original on January 24, 2016.
  30. ^ Borosage (January 19, 2017). "The Poisonous Politics of David Brock: Can Democrats resist his Faustian bargain?". The Nation. Brock's empire, including Media Matters, American Bridge, ShareBlue, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, served as a hit squad for the Clinton campaign last year.
  31. ^ Jay Newton-Small (February 24, 2016). "Q&A: David Brock on Attacking Bernie Sanders". Time.
  32. ^ Johnson, Adam (March 8, 2016), Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours, FAIR, archived from the original on December 2, 2019, retrieved December 2, 2019
  33. ^ Washington Post Runs 16 Anti-Sanders Ads in 16 hours, Democracy Now!, March 11, 2016, archived from the original on December 2, 2019, retrieved December 1, 2019
  34. ^ Callum Borchers (March 8, 2016). "Has The Washington Post been too hard on Bernie Sanders this week?". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on December 4, 2019. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
  35. ^ Callum Borchers (2016). "Now The Washington Post ran 16 positive stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours! #bias". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on December 4, 2019. Retrieved December 13, 2019.
  36. ^ Johnson, Adam (March 9, 2016). "Shocker: WaPo Investigates Itself for Anti-Sanders Bias, Finds There Was None". Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Archived from the original on October 17, 2019. Retrieved December 13, 2019.
  37. ^ Nolan Higdon; Mickey Huff (2019). "Breaking News, Broken News". United States of Distraction: Media Manipulation in Post-Truth America (and What We Can Do about It). City Lights Books.
  38. ^ a b Katie Halper (June 28, 2019), Sydney Ember's Secret Sources, FAIR
  39. ^ Felix Hamborg, Norman Meuschke, Akiko Aizawa, Bela Gipp (2017). "Identification and Analysis of Media Bias in News Articles" (PDF). In Gäde M, Trkulja V, Petras V (eds.). Everything Changes, Everything Stays the Same? Understanding Information Spaces. Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium of Information Science (ISI 2017). Humbolt-Universität Zu Berlin. pp. 225–226.
  40. ^ Matt Taibbi (March 15, 2016). "How the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders". Rolling Stone.
  41. ^ Margaret Sullivan (March 17, 2019). "Were Changes to Sanders Article 'Stealth Editing'?". The New York Times.
  42. ^ Mitch Wertlieb; Kathleen Masterson (April 1, 2016), 'Bernie Bias' In The News? NPR's Media Correspondent Responds To Your Critiques, VPR
  43. ^ Matthew Yglesias (April 6, 2016). "After Wisconsin, Sanders is worse off than ever in the delegate race". Vox. Retrieved December 9, 2019.
  44. ^ Ezra Klein (April 7, 2016). "Is the media biased against Bernie Sanders?". Vox. Retrieved December 9, 2019. Sanders's win in Wisconsin, given the state's demographics, didn't imply that the race has changed in ways that put him on track for the nomination. If anything, Tuesday was a night when he fell a bit further behind in the delegate race.
  45. ^ Holly Otterbein (March 5, 2019). "Clinton camp stews over Sanders 2020 campaign". Politico. Archived from the original on November 12, 2019. Retrieved December 29, 2019. Both on the record and on background, on Twitter and on cable television, Clinton's former aides and allies are taking pains to lay out what they see as all of Sanders's flaws, imperfections and vulnerabilities
  46. ^ David Brock (January 10, 2017). "Dear Senator Sanders: I'm with You in the Fight Ahead". Medium. Archived from the original on December 29, 2019. Retrieved December 29, 2019.
  47. ^ Shane Ryan (February 21, 2019), "The Washington Post, Picking Up Where They Left Off in 2016, Runs Four Negative Bernie Sanders Stories in Two Days", Paste, archived from the original on October 21, 2019, retrieved January 2, 2020
  48. ^ Paul Heintz (February 26, 2019). "I've reported on Bernie Sanders for years. A free press won't give him what he wants". The Washington Post.
  49. ^ Elizabeth Williamson; Kenneth P. Vogel (April 15, 2019). "The Rematch: Bernie Sanders vs. a Clinton Loyalist". The New York Times.
  50. ^ Kenneth P. Vogel; Sydney Ember (April 14, 2019). "Bernie Sanders Accuses Liberal Think Tank of Smearing Progressive Candidates". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 3, 2019. Retrieved December 29, 2019. [Sanders] wrote: 'Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress is using its resources to smear Senator Booker, Senator Warren and myself, among others. This is hardly the way to build unity, or to win the general election.'
  51. ^ Template:Cite article
  52. ^ a b Template:Cite article
  53. ^ @AOC (May 25, 2019). "Can ⁦@politico ⁩ explain to us how photoshopping money trees next to the only Jewish candidate for president and talking about how "cheap" and rich he is *isn't* antisemitic? Or are they just letting this happen because he's a progressive politician they don't like?"" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  54. ^ Template:Cite article
  55. ^ Template:Cite article
  56. ^ Template:Cite article
  57. ^ Michael Calderone (July 15, 2019), "Sanders campaign: Media 'find Bernie annoying, discount his seriousness'", Politico
  58. ^ Travis Irvine (September 3, 2019), Media's Anti-Bernie Bias is Mind-Boggling, Columbia Free Press
  59. ^ a b Michael Calderone (August 13, 2019), "Washington Post editor attacks Bernie Sanders' "conspiracy theory"", Politico
  60. ^ a b Domenico Montanaro (August 13, 2019), Bernie Sanders Again Attacks Amazon – This Time Pulling In 'The Washington Post', NPR
  61. ^ Chris Cillizza (August 14, 2019), Bernie Sanders isn't sorry, CNN
  62. ^ Tim Dickinson (August 29, 2019). "The Washington Post's Latest Fact Check of Bernie Sanders Is Really Something". Rolling Stone.
  63. ^ Salvador Rizzo (August 28, 2019). "Sanders's flawed statistic: 500,000 medical bankruptcies a year". The Washington Post.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  64. ^ Emma Specter (November 8, 2019), "Bernie Sanders Is the Most Progressive Politician in the 2020 Race. Why Aren't More People Talking About Him?", Vogue
  65. ^ Branco Marcetic (November 3, 2019), "MSNBC Is the Most Influential Network Among Liberals—And It's Ignoring Bernie Sanders", In These Times
  66. ^ Luke Savage (November 20, 2019), The Corporate Media's War Against Bernie Sanders Is Very Real, Jacobin
  67. ^ a b Paul Abowd; Ryan Grim (December 8, 2019). "The 'Bernie Blackout' Is in Effect – and It Could Help Sanders Win". The Intercept. Retrieved December 17, 2019.
  68. ^ Beatrice Jin; Ryan Heath (November 20, 2019). "Where 2020 Democrats shine and stumble". Politico. Archived from the original on November 21, 2019. Retrieved December 15, 2019.
  69. ^ David Leonhardt (December 22, 2019). "Opinion | How 'Centrist Bias' Hurts Sanders and Warren". The New York Times. Retrieved December 27, 2019. Once you start thinking about centrist bias, you recognize a lot of it. It helps explain why the 2016 presidential debates focused more on the budget deficit, a topic of centrist zealotry, than climate change, almost certainly a bigger threat. (Well-funded deficit advocacy plays a role too.)
  70. ^ Matt Taibbi (January 15, 2020). "CNN's Debate Performance Was Villainous and Shameful". Rolling Stone.
  71. ^ Jeet Heer (January 15, 2020). "CNN Has It In for Bernie". The Nation.
  72. ^ Ryan Grim; Aída Chávez; Akela Lacy (January 15, 2020). "At Iowa, Bernie Sanders' most vociferous opponent was CNN". The Intercept.
  73. ^ Jim Naureckas; Julie Hollar (January 15, 2020). "FAIR: The Big Loser in the Iowa Debate? CNN's Reputation". Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.
  74. ^ Tom Jones (January 15, 2020). "A media misfire from CNN during the debate » Press may be cut out of some impeachment hearings » Megyn Kelly reacts to 'Bombshell'". Poynter.
  75. ^ David Bowder (January 15, 2020). "CNN draws fire for debate question that ignores denial". ABC News.
  76. ^ MARI UYEHARA (February 12, 2020). "Why Does Mainstream Media Keep Attacking Bernie Sanders as He Wins?". GQ.
  77. ^ @ADL (February 11, 2019). "ADL comments on Chuck Todd's segment about Sanders" (Tweet) – via Twitter. {{Cite tweet}}: |date= / |number= mismatch (help)
  78. ^ "MSNBC's Chuck Todd criticized by Anti-Defamation League over Sanders 'brownshirt brigade' remark". Fox News. February 13, 2020.
  79. ^ Margaret Sullivan (February 12, 2020). "The media keep falling in love — with anybody but Bernie Sanders". Washington Post.
  80. ^ Laura Wagner (February 12, 2020). "Analysis: The Real Winner of the New Hampshire Primary Was Bernie Sanders". Vice News.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_coverage_of_Bernie_Sanders&oldid=940597850"